Is it possible that Buddhist practice could cause a lack of interest or even repulsion of sex? Lately I have tried to have sex a few times and I felt uninterested and repulsed by it. I was so repulsed that I couldn't even function down there. It feels so pointless to go through this entire ritual which takes so much energy and time for this tiny moment of pleasure which feels like a sneeze. It all seems so disgusting, the smells, the fluids etc. It's all rather filthy and I feel like my entire aura is dirty after. I still have the desirous thoughts that lead me to seek it out but when I do it just doesn't happen. Is this a symptom of meditation practice?

How to meditate, lower parts of Dependent Origination with five aggregates ?

What might be more or real "cool"? For example (in practice), seeing a spelling error or a typo: - Would the one "not touched", ignoring the error (even he would have the possibility, skill and means) be regarded as higher? - Or the one taking on a correction (even if not having best possibilities, skills and handicapped ways, nevertheless by skillful means)? In summary, **is equanimity more sublime that an excellent/skillful and beneficial act?** Side question: if beneficial help is more sublime, to what extend would a seemingly beneficial help be actually unskillful, lower than equanimity? ___ *[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]*

I've seen some people do this. But how practical is this with the modern lifestyle? As an example the place where I sit in the office is a bit too comfortable. Sometimes there's music in public transport. If that person shares a place with others or visits other people, they may have to change their lifestyles as well. e.g: eating before noon. How can one deal with such situations without being a nuisance to others, if someone decides to observe them in day-to-day life?

I have experienced enlightenment multiple times. I have found many religions have a similar way of describing it, though they can differ about how many experiences occur and if they are sudden or spread apart over long periods of time. I have also heard it referred to as [Kundalini](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kundalini) Awakening where it is a process that can take years to go through the 7 stages. According to this article there are [Four stages of enlightenment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_enlightenment) > **My question is this, How many levels or layers of enlightenment are there? Does it happen all at once?**

Equanimity is one of the central points of buddhism practice. I am curious what would happen to that state in cases of extreme disturbance. Imagine that you were in immediate danger, like being killed by someone , robbed or raped. I guess Equanimity would not be helpful on those cases, unless we are talking about calmness to think better how to counter-attack. But that would require action, and not only being observer, how equanimity states. With base of these circunstances, i would like to hear your opinions. What would happen to an equanimity state in case of extreme disturbances?

I am an old student of S.N. Goenka Vipassana treat. I want to know whether Vipassana alone is sufficient to achieve Nirvana or not? Did Siddhartha Gautam became Buddha using Vipassana alone? Or If he employed some other techniques what were those?

Is it correct to say that the vipassana experience of *bhanga* is a synonym of stream entrance (sotapatti)?

I recall reading somewhere that beauty is a lure within Buddhism, and causes attachment towards the external world. However, I've come to think beauty may be positive in certain circumstances. This site which deals with mindfulness and other such topics suggests witnessing nature mindfully allows greater connection. My reasoning is that if compassion is put forwards in Buddhism, especially with the Mahayana, then attachment isn't necessarily all bad. I recall reading the Dalai Lama explaining how compassion propels karma, but towards positive rebirth. Attachment towards others through compassion can benefit the individual in the present or future. QUESTION 1: What is the benefit of aesthetic contemplation, if any? And, in line with this, I wonder if within compassion meditation one needs to experience feeling during the meditation itself. I remember the Dalai Lama saying one should generate compassion with reasons, then focus upon the feeling. It's difficult for me to do so, so I wonder if compassion-meditation can work without immediate feeling. QUESTION 2: Is feeling (either vedana or 'emotion') necessary for compassion meditation? Thank you.

Sometimes, I tell myself that a moment wherein I'm devoid of craving, ignorance and aversion is a moment inherently good. I tell myself that if I remove the addictive (and aversive) states within myself , then the right choices within my experience will naturally be made. So, with the example of social media -- which is addictive for me -- I cannot easily pay mindfulness while doing this activity. However, I view *every* other moment free of affliction as naturally and effortlessly conducive to mindfulness. While doing almost anything that is not afflicted in terms of mental state, mindfulness and curiosity towards experience leads to diverse virtuous results. Oddly, however, I do not get attached to such virtuous experiences, but return to addictive and pleasurable states. It's like an irony: what is detrimental is naturally addictive and what is wise and virtuous more difficult. QUESTION 1: Is this view of a 'normal' affliction-free state -- i.e. *not* a meditative absorption or compassion filled state -- as virtuous correct? Just normal awareness? QUESTION 2: Wouldn't virtuous states, perhaps in time, become addictive in themselves? For now, they are more akin to equanimity, whereas I'm neither drawn or averse to them. Or, would they remain like equanimity? Thank you.

Bhanga: the dissolution of the ego. Can it be described as a synonym of wisdom (panna)? As the realization (experiential seeing and knowing) of the tilakkhana (anicca; dukkha; and anatta)?

Can one remove the asavas without becoming an arahant?

I would like to know what are all the cases in which a karma's fruit is destroyed. Except being destroyed by walking the "path" - this will derail this question cause this causes discussions on this point alone ... so please ignore the destruction of karma with practicing the nobles path. karma's fruit can be destroyed by other karmas - right? Karma's fruit can be destroyed by not having a chance to happen in a specific lifetime - for example in this lifetime or the next one - right? (*Subsequently effective kamma - upapajjavedaniya kamma) answer to second mini question : yes (counting karma with tiny amount to ripen as destroyed vipaka ) - but that does not mean that karma with destroyed vipaka has no effect cause there are 3 effects for karma - and there always have to have at least one effect the three are : samuṭṭhānas - accummulations - vipaka

I am studying the jhanas and it says you can enter jhana without fully purifying the hindrances. I thought you can't reach the jhana without first fully suppressing the hindrance. How does one do that? Here's what the book said. > When a bhikkhu enters upon a jhána without [first] completely suppressing lust by reviewing the dangers in sense desires, etc., and without [first] completely tranquillizing bodily irritability37 by tranquillizing the body, and without [first] completely removing stiffness and torpor by bringing to mind the elements of initiative, etc., (§55), and without [first] completely abolishing agitation and worry by bringing to mind the sign of serenity, etc., and without [first] completely purifying his mind of other states that obstruct concentration, then that bhikkhu soon comes out of that jhána again, like a bee that has gone into an unpurified hive, like a king who has gone into an unclean park.

Buddha said that Nirvana is an end to the suffering of an individual. However if we think from a larger perspective, there is no end to the suffering as a whole. The world will get created again and new Buddha will or will not arise to help us escape the suffering. There were Buddhas in the past and there will be many Buddhas in the future but so has the suffering manifested in the past and will manifest in the future. My question is: Is it possible to envisage an end to the suffering, absolutely for all, for ever?

Video: [Does God Exist? - Sadhguru](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9GXI_9DXF0) This is a story I picked up from the above video (watch from 4.25): - A man confused about the existence of god asks Buddha if god exists. Buddha gives a straightforward "NO". - After a while another man asked the same question and the Buddha, surprisingly, said "YES". First of all I do not know whether this is a true story. If (or assuming that) it is true, I want to know what made Buddha give contradicting answers?

As in, nibbana is not impermanent, not unsatisfactory. It is still not-self, but in being different with respect to two out of three marks, it satisfies the notion of some fundamentally 'other' world more than any of the heavens in Buddhist literature. Does nibbana make more sense as the 'other world' mentioned in the stock description of right view? > "And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, > resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, > what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. > There is this world & the next world." MN117

1. If there's no *rebirth*, what happens after death of a *non-arahant*? Does a new life ensue dependent on the one which has just ended? 2. Rebirth is tightly connected with *kamma*. a) Do you observe ripening of all results of wholesome and unwholesome actions in the current life? b) If you don't, what's in your opinion the fate of those *kammas* which haven't produced result in the current life? 3. Current existence is traditionally thought of as being a manifestation of *kamma* amassed in previous existences. If there's no *rebirth*, current life hasn't been preceded by any other existence which would contribute its *kamma* to it. How do you then explain differences between people and their experiences, which in MN 135 in particular are explained through *kamma*? 4. From experience (one salient example is fate of many Nazi war criminals) it's known that retribution for deeds both evil and good often doesn't occur in the current life (yet the law of *kamma* somehow needs to operate), it's also unlikely that *aranantship* will be achieved in the current existence. Without afterlife and no *arahantship* in sight, what then should be incentive to do good and deterrent against doing evil? 5. If a person doesn't attain *nibbana* in the current life, isn't there any hope for them? Thank you for your time

In the book **Path Of Purification** It talks about > The explanation of the meaning here( " talking about the five jhana mastery mostly mastety if Adverting " ) is this. When he emerges from the first jhána and first of all adverts to the applied thought, then, next to the adverting that arose interrupting the life-continuum, either four or five impulsions impel with that applied thought as their object. Then there are two life-continuum [consciousnesses]. Then there is adverting with the sustained thought as its object and followed by impulsions in the way just stated. When he is able to prolong his conscious process uninterruptedly in this way with the five jhána factors, then his mastery of adverting is successful. But this mastery is found at its acme of perfection in the Blessed One’s Twin Marvel (Paþis I 125), or for others on the aforesaid occasions. There is no quicker mastery in adverting than that. I'm having trouble understanding what they mean here. What iis life-continuum? It said in brackets consciousness so it's disrupting consciousness of the jhana object? What i guess they mean is once you come out of jhana use applied thought to focus on the things that intruped that jhana then once you have "applied" applied thought move to focus on the objects with sustain thought once you can do this uninterrupted you mastered adverting?

Buddha says all phenomenon are nonself. If understanding is a phenomenon then my understanding of Dhamma will fade away and I will again fall into ignorance. So my question is: is understanding a phenomenon?